Re: Scrap Prime 4 and give us Mathcad 16 - Page 2

MarkBuckton · ‎Apr 24, 2014

The only thing that people seem to like about Mathcad Prime is its better unit handling. If my assertion is true and it is also true that Prime and MC15 are still using the Mathcad 12 kernel why not just incorporate the better unit handling in Mathcad 15? What other benefits does Prime have over MC15? If PTC. believes a MS ribbon interface is cool that's fine and they are at liberty to have ribbon version which they can use internally if that keeps them happy. So here is my solution for PTC. Get 2 good programmers for 2 months. One programmer works on incorporating the new unit handling into MC15 and the other works on incorporating the new numerical solvers. Allow a month for quality assurance and ship Mathcad 16 on August 1 2014. Every Mathcad user is happy PTC is happy also because it can continue to play with its toy version of Mathcad Prime internally and let the users concentrate on what should be in the Mathcad 17. Afterall without us there is no Mathcad, yet PTC never asks its users what they want in the program. Are PTC software builders or demolishes users have the right to decide who they are employing, we pay their wages, after all we are PTC clients but I think they have forgotten that. It's about time they put away their toys and grow up.

I Hope others feel the same.

regards Mark

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jun 03, 2014

Actually, I know why it can't do that, but I was asked not to tell. It would be very difficult to do, and is therefore uinlikely to ever happen.

That is unbelievable.

So the way PTC are going they are never going to allow backwards compatibility to Mathcad 15 and lower?

RichardJ · ‎Jun 03, 2014

If by "backwards compatibility" you mean saving from Prime to MC15 format, that is very unlikely. It would require a huge amount of work, and no software company would do that to support an old software version.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jun 03, 2014

Yes I did mean saving Prime to M15 format.

I wouldn't have expected a software company to develop a product which didn't support earlier versions in the first place.

RichardJ · ‎Jun 03, 2014

Well, like I said, there is a reason, and in principle it's a good one. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break a couple of eggs. The problem I have with Prime is not that the eggs got broken (it was a necessary evil), but that we got a lousy omelette in exchange. I don't know of any good reason why Prime 3.0 can't save back to earlier Prime versions. OK, so Omelette 2.0 didn't support bacon, but at least I could save a cheese omelette in the earlier version

Several software packages don't save backwards. I use Quickbooks for my accounts, and that cannot save to earlier versions (in fact, when you read a file from an earlier version it tells you it's converting it). I guess it makes sense, because you can't afford to have a file in which the accounts are wrong because of a missing feature that was used when they were created. A lot of CAD packages, including Solidworks, do not save backwards. Perhaps also a good idea if you are relying on the CAD to build something like a bridge!

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jun 04, 2014

Well, like I said, there is a reason, and in principle it's a good one. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break a couple of eggs. The problem I have with Prime is not that the eggs got broken (it was a necessary evil), but that we got a lousy omelette in exchange. I don't know of any good reason why Prime 3.0 can't save back to earlier Prime versions. OK, so Omelette 2.0 didn't support bacon, but at least I could save a cheese omelette in the earlier version

Great analogy

Several software packages don't save backwards. I use Quickbooks for my accounts, and that cannot save to earlier versions (in fact, when you read a file from an earlier version it tells you it's converting it). I guess it makes sense, because you can't afford to have a file in which the accounts are wrong because of a missing feature that was used when they were created. A lot of CAD packages, including Solidworks, do not save backwards. Perhaps also a good idea if you are relying on the CAD to build something like a bridge!

Good point, but one would expect latter versions of software to have all (most) features of the proceeding versions.

RichardJ · ‎Jun 04, 2014

Good point, but one would expect latter versions of software to have all (most) features of the proceeding versions.

MC15: Omelette with 1, 2, or 3 eggs, options of 3 types of cheese, bacon, onions, peppers, mushrooms, tomatoes, 3 different seasonings.

Prime 1.0: Omelette with 1 egg.

Prime 2.0: Omelette with 1 or 2 eggs, option of cheese.

Prime 3.0: Omelette with 1 or 2 eggs, option of cheese or bacon.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jun 04, 2014

Maybe, just maybe we will get the cooked breakfast.

syaacoby · ‎Jun 26, 2014

Richard Jackson wrote:
Good point, but one would expect latter versions of software to have all (most) features of the proceeding versions.
MC15: Omelette with 1, 2, or 3 eggs, options of 3 types of cheese, bacon, onions, peppers, mushrooms, tomatoes, 3 different seasonings.
Prime 1.0: Omelette with 1 egg.
Prime 2.0: Omelette with 1 or 2 eggs, option of cheese.
Prime 3.0: Omelette with 1 or 2 eggs, option of cheese or bacon.

I'm afraid that Prime 4.0: Will be Omelette with no eggs, no cheese or bacon.

It is very sad...

SHEMY.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jun 26, 2014

shemy yaacoby wrote:
Richard Jackson wrote:
Good point, but one would expect latter versions of software to have all (most) features of the proceeding versions.
MC15: Omelette with 1, 2, or 3 eggs, options of 3 types of cheese, bacon, onions, peppers, mushrooms, tomatoes, 3 different seasonings.
Prime 1.0: Omelette with 1 egg.
Prime 2.0: Omelette with 1 or 2 eggs, option of cheese.
Prime 3.0: Omelette with 1 or 2 eggs, option of cheese or bacon.

I'm afraid that Prime 4.0: Will be Omelette with no eggs, no cheese or bacon.

It is very sad...
SHEMY.

It can't / won't be less than Prime 3.0

syaacoby · ‎Jun 28, 2014

Mike Armstrong wrote:
shemy yaacoby wrote:
Richard Jackson wrote:
Good point, but one would expect latter versions of software to have all (most) features of the proceeding versions.
MC15: Omelette with 1, 2, or 3 eggs, options of 3 types of cheese, bacon, onions, peppers, mushrooms, tomatoes, 3 different seasonings.
Prime 1.0: Omelette with 1 egg.
Prime 2.0: Omelette with 1 or 2 eggs, option of cheese.
Prime 3.0: Omelette with 1 or 2 eggs, option of cheese or bacon.

I'm afraid that Prime 4.0: Will be Omelette with no eggs, no cheese or bacon.

It is very sad...
SHEMY.
It can't / won't be less than Prime 3.0

Are you sure ??? - PTC likes to step back...

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jul 02, 2014

I don't think they will step back with Prime 4.0 though

syaacoby · ‎Jun 02, 2014

WE ARE ALL WAITING TO PRIME 7 OR 8 ... AND FOR A REAL CONVERTER !

UNTILL THAN WE CONTINUE TO USE MC15 ... AND HOPE IT WILL WORK IN WIN9, WIN10 ...

PTC LEAVES US WITHOUT NO CHOICE ...

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jun 26, 2014

Fingers crossed the convertor will be improved in Prime 4.0

Werner_E · ‎Jun 26, 2014

We can't expect a useful converter as long as Prime is missing that many features of Mathcad. And I can't image that Prime4 can live up to Mathcad. They promised that for Prime3 but I guess it will never happen to full extent.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jun 27, 2014

I believe they will get there one day. I honestly think if they added all the missing features of M15 into Prime 4.0 and improved the general performance then Prime would be an improvement ,on M15.

Why won't PTC concentrate on this instead of using resource on developing integration with Creo and other 3D packages.

dschenken · ‎Jun 27, 2014

Does my response in this message seem reasonable?

http://communities.ptc.com/message/242645#242645

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jun 27, 2014

Yes it certainly does David. I must have missed that.

dschenken · ‎Jun 27, 2014

It makes me a bit sad - it's not something that one can ascribe to greed or stupidity or meanness, just a simple fact of the way companies can settle in. I like to think that it's not optimum, so that there is some hope for a forcing function to make things nicer for users.

As a Friday offset, something that struck me as Ha ha funny. I just looked at a bank statement envelope and noticed the postal rate marking from a Pitney-Bowes machine. It shows the amount as $000.40 and a superscript 6 for the tenths of a cent. How often do $100.00+ postal rates apply? Not looking forward to that rate hike.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jun 27, 2014

You don't need to tell us in the UK. Postal costs have increased exponentially.

RichardJ · ‎Jun 27, 2014

Any price subject to a constant rate of inflation would increase exponentially

syaacoby · ‎Jun 03, 2014

Only now I understand why PTC cant supply us a perfact converter to MC15 ....

We expect them to take a serious software (MC15) - and convert It's data into software (MP) thats

is a joke (with a ribon) ... it really unreasonable expectation from us...

So, first PTC should bring MP to the grade of MC15 ( So stupid of me even to write such a thing...)

and than making a good converter will be possible.
Two birds with one stone.

I am using MC since version 1 (DOS)

I'm really upset and sad because of thISS situation,

and worry about my hundreds of old MC documents.

I hope someone in PTC will finally care their loyal customers !!!

Shemy.

lamb · ‎Sep 29, 2014

I would like to disagree with you, but unfortunately I can't. I like some of the features of Prime 2.0, in particular the unit handling. Although I have been using MC since the DOS days and into Windows, I have not had the same problem adapting to the ribbon that many seem to have, and I now find it easier than the old menus.

However, what counts is the power and usability, and I have not found that Prime is up to snuff. I have been diligent about trying to move over to Prime 2.0, but I still find myself using MC15 for various reasons. I have not seen enough improvements in Prime 3.0 to go over to that.

MC15 is still a 32-bit program, of course, but I would not have thought it would be such a big task to convert it to 64-bit.

I would hesitate to say that PTC should revert to 'Classic' MC, but they really need toeither do that or move Prime ahead by including all tha capabilities of MC15 and adding value in the form of easier interface, more computation power, better graphing, etc.

James

MikeArmstrong · ‎Sep 29, 2014

James Lamb wrote:
MC15 is still a 32-bit program, of course, but I would not have thought it would be such a big task to convert it to 64-bit.

PTC will be adding support for Windows 8.1 operating system in the Prime 3.1 and 15.0 M040.

I would hesitate to say that PTC should revert to 'Classic' MC, but they really need toeither do that or move Prime ahead by including all tha capabilities of MC15 and adding value in the form of easier interface, more computation power, better graphing, etc.

There are many features still missing from Prime but there is no chance of ever going back, we need to move forward. Hopefully with the delayed release of Prime 4.0 it will be much closer to where we want it to be.

fperez-3 · ‎Sep 09, 2016

I think It is about perspective too. For me is better to use Prime than Mathcad 15. It was easier for my investigations and for my students too. You can easily combine with other programs and that is helpful for my company of structural engineering too. What I see with my researchers colleagues is that if they are doing what they have always done they will hate prime. But if they are improving in other new technological areas they will love prime.

Maybe PTC is not thinking in old users but maybe in the new ones. Like Microsoft, Autodesk and other software companies do. And I think we are the ones who always have to improve ourselves and use the new technologies, because It doesn't matter how many titles we have. If we cannot use the new technologies we will be forgotten.

StuartBruff · ‎Oct 29, 2016

Felix Perez wrote:

I think It is about perspective too. For me is better to use Prime than Mathcad 15. It was easier for my investigations and for my students too. You can easily combine with other programs and that is helpful for my company of structural engineering too. What I see with my researchers colleagues is that if they are doing what they have always done they will hate prime. But if they are improving in other new technological areas they will love prime.

Maybe PTC is not thinking in old users but maybe in the new ones. Like Microsoft, Autodesk and other software companies do. And I think we are the ones who always have to improve ourselves and use the new technologies, because It doesn't matter how many titles we have. If we cannot use the new technologies we will be forgotten.

Unfortunately for your argument, Prime is *not* an improvement over Mathcad 15 - it lacks many of the features that Mathcad 15 provides and that many engineers find necessary or highly desirable for doing their jobs. For example, Prime is almost totally unsuited for image manipulation, as there is no means to make changes to an image that are automatically reflected in the worksheet. In M15, all I had to do was apply a transform to an image and then look at it in an Image Component. In Prime, one has to write the image to file and then *manually* load that file *every single time* a change is made to the image - this is impractical to say the least. In addition, the UI response is very slow and I frequently found myself thinking I could have counted up to infinity and back before Prime actually displayed a result. For reasons such as this, a significant number of engineers will not use Prime unless circumstances dictate that they have to. It simply doesn't do the job. I'd "improved" myself beyond Primes's current level of capability many years ago.

Which is a pity, as there are some nice features in Prime - particularly the removal of static type checking and the ability to mix units in arrays. Hopefully, Prime 4.0 will give sufficient improvement that I will make more use of Prime. Otherwise, I shall stick to M15 as my development tool of choice.

Stuart

albertschepers · ‎Oct 28, 2016

This topic started April 2014. Two and a half years later there is still no Prime 4.0 or improvements to MathCAD 15. I understand they are coming but apparently they were announced in 2014. My issue is that neither works on Windows 10 without difficulty, try to get it running, I did and the PTC techs had not been informed about how to load Net Framework 3.5 , required for MAthcad. Also with both loaded on the computer Prime will not convert from Mathcad in Windows 10.

This is not about Ribbons or functionality it is simply about keeping it current. This is a great program, I have used it from about version 1, but it is languishing and it appears there is no interest in improving or updating.

A

StuartBruff · ‎Oct 29, 2016

Albert Schepers wrote:

This topic started April 2014. Two and a half years later there is still no Prime 4.0 or improvements to MathCAD 15. I understand they are coming but apparently they were announced in 2014. My issue is that neither works on Windows 10 without difficulty, try to get it running, I did and the PTC techs had not been informed about how to load Net Framework 3.5 , required for MAthcad. Also with both loaded on the computer Prime will not convert from Mathcad in Windows 10.

This is not about Ribbons or functionality it is simply about keeping it current. This is a great program, I have used it from about version 1, but it is languishing and it appears there is no interest in improving or updating.

A

Oddly, I didn't have any problems getting Mathcad 15 and Prime 3.1 running on two Windows 10 laptops, nor did I have any problems converting *mcd* programs to Prime.

Unfortunately, Mathcad has been functionally languishing for many years. Not only is it missing many features that most (if not all) of it major competitors have but it doesn't even provide adequate support for many of the features it does have (eg, simplified indexing and information functions for nested arrays, automation of animation (missing from Prime altogether) and programmatic control of plots (M15 allows some access to the 3D plot via a Component, but not all of the potential interfaces are exposed, and this is not a "Mathcad feature" as such but is probably a serendipitous oversight - it's certainly not documented!).

To make Mathcad a truly serious contender in the market, PTC need to deploy more resources to push Prime more rapidly along its development path and to add the features that would make it a Proper 21st Century mathematical application.

Stuart

albertschepers · ‎Oct 31, 2016

I agree.

I would like to know how you set up your machine to translate mathcad to prime.

I am running a Surface Tablet 64 bit OS with touch capabilities.

I struggled to get .net framework 3.5, PTC was no help, but I do have both programs working on the surface the only problem is Prime 3.1 does not convert any mathcad sheets.

Perhaps you have some incite. If so maybe a new thread is needed for this discussion.

StuartBruff · ‎Oct 31, 2016

Albert Schepers wrote:

I agree.

I would like to know how you set up your machine to translate mathcad to prime.

I am running a Surface Tablet 64 bit OS with touch capabilities.

I struggled to get .net framework 3.5, PTC was no help, but I do have both programs working on the surface the only problem is Prime 3.1 does not convert any mathcad sheets.

Perhaps you have some incite. If so maybe a new thread is needed for this discussion.

Albert,

Are you trying to import an M15 worksheet directly into Prime 3.1? Or are you using the xmcd converter?

Stuart

albertschepers · ‎Oct 31, 2016

I am using the convertor in Prime. If they van be read directly, I had not tried that but in Prime 2 it was not possible, I will try that.

I started a new discussion thread to see if there are specific answers.

https://community.ptc.com/t5/PTC-Mathcad/Conversion-of-MAthCAD-15-to-Prime-3-1-on-Microsoft-Surface/m-p/276422#468878

A